Which version should we believe?

BY Himanshu Upadhyaya| IN Opinion | 11/12/2009
Letter to the Hoot: The Hindu gives space to two versions of an assault on an all women fact finding team Narayanpatna, on the same day, with different datelines and sources,
says HIMANSHU UPADHYAYA.

On December 10, 2009 the epaper of the Hindu carried two news item on the visit of an all women fact finding team to Narayanpatna under the sections 'Other States' and 'Andhra Pradesh'. While the news story filed by a staff reporter from Berhampur was titled, All Women Fact finding team faces wrath of mob at Narayanpatna, another one filed by a correspondent at Vizianagaram was headlined Women's probe team assaulted.

 

The news story filed by a staff reporter from Berhampur  sought to put the phrase fact-finding within single inverted commas, reported the account of the 'wrath of the mob' by invoking sources, and even preferred to report what the mob alleged as the intent of the team's visit. The news story referred to the  "violent activities" of Chasi Muliya Adivasi Sangh [CMAS] thrice in the story. The  story concludes with a summary which unashamedly embraces a version that tries to portray CMAS as an organisation that"used violent means to oppose alleged tribal land grabbing by non-tribals and large scale illicit liquor trading". Look at the placement of adjective 'alleged'. One wonders why the correspondent doesn't place it before the phrase violent means attributed to CMAS, but only before the phrase tribal land grabbing by non-tribals.

 

His version also reported the views of Sanjeev Panda, the DIG of Police South West range, who said"the members of the fact finding team had not filed any complaint with police", while accepting"they had faced opposition of the angry mob". The correspondent reported what Sanjeev Panda said:"the vehicle of this team had crossed a police check point in Bandhugaon block in heavy speed. It had made the people of the area feel the vehicle may be escaping after causing an accident. So, the localites also pelted stones at the vehicle to stop it".

 

Did the Hindu carry  two news stories filed on the same event to give us the benefit of rather different versions?  The second, shorter one based on a phone conversation with an activist and the  longer one from Behrampur based on 'sources' and the DIG of Police, with a questionable anti-tribal content. The second report came from its correspondent based in Viziyanagaram who had access to at least one member of the fact finding team Sudha Bhardwaj  on the phone, and whose report said that"police at Narayanpatna station were witness to 'indecent' behaviour of the mob".

  

The assault on the all women fact finding team at the police station has led to Medha Patkar filing a formal complaint at the Governor's office and several Bhubaneshwar-based social activists demanding that State Human Rights Commission should investigate into the assault and the partisan role played by police.  

 

Dear editors at The Hindu please tell us, which of your versions should we give credence to?

 

 

Himanshu Upadhyaya

New Delhi

 

December 11, 2009

 

Subscribe To The Newsletter
The new term for self censorship is voluntary censorship, as proposed by companies like Netflix and Hotstar. ET reports that streaming video service Amazon Prime is opposing a move by its peers to adopt a voluntary censorship code in anticipation of the Indian government coming up with its own rules. Amazon is resisting because it fears that it may alienate paying subscribers.                   

Clearly, the run to the 2019 elections is on. A journalist received a call from someone saying they were from Aajtak channel and were conducting a survey, asking whom she was going to vote for in 2019. On being told that her vote was secret, the caller assumed she wasn't going to vote for 'Modiji'. The caller, a woman, also didn't identify herself. A month or two earlier the same journalist received a call, this time from a man, asking if she was going to vote for the BSP.                 

View More